Proposal: Control.Concurrent.Async

Heinrich Apfelmus apfelmus at
Sat Jun 9 10:29:13 CEST 2012

Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 8 June 2012 11:07, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at> wrote:
>> Uploading it to Hackage is certainly an option, and there are arguments in
>> both directions.  My thinking was:
>> [..]
>>  - it's a bit small for a package by itself. There's a lot of
>>   overhead for a package (github repo, Haskell Platform proposal,
>>   issue tracker, blah blah)

Github provides much of the infrastructure by default, like an issue 

> I am very much against putting things into base unless there is a
> *very* good argument to do this.  If it is supposed to be *the*
> standard package, then it belongs into the platform, not base.  If the
> platform process is too heavy-weight to discourage this path, then we
> need to do something about that rather than sneak things in through
> the base library.  It already is a pain to work around issues in the
> base library (and many other core packages) since it's (a) takes a
> long time for an update to be released, and (b) cannot be upgraded
> independently from GHC (pulling in all the changes to other libraries
> as well).
> I'm glad that the name issues is resolved.  If it is a small library a
> platform addition proposal shouldn't be too difficult either.  We just
> have to beware of too much bike shedding.
> (BTW, have we had another platform proposal since the text package?)

+1 for a separate package that is included in the Haskell Platform.

If merging a package into the base library is easier than the process of 
including it in the Haskell Platform, then the latter needs to be fixed.

Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus


More information about the Libraries mailing list